REMiS^KKS 



OF THE 



HON. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS, 



ON 



KANSAS, UTAH, 



AlTD 



THE DEED SCOTT DECISION. 



Delivered at SprinsAeld, Illinois, June I2tli, 1857. 



CHICAGO: 

PRINTED AT THE DAILY TIMTIS BOOK AND JOB QFFIOB, 

NO. 48 LA gALLB STRBBT, BKCOND AND THIRD BTOEtBS. 

1857. 



KANSAS, UTAH, k THE DRED SCOTT DECISION. 



lit 

I'V 

■t, 
lit 

le 
le 



REMARKS • le 

It 



HON. STEI>HEN A. DOUGLAS, 



le 
e 
a 

DELITKKCI) AT TUK RTATE BOCSK IK BPRtKOrULD, JCNS IS, 18IT. 

y 

e 

3 
l- 

Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen: I appear before you to-night, at the 1 

request of the Graml Jury in attendance .upon the United States Court, for the t 
purpose of submitting my views uj)on certain toi)ics upon wliich they have 

expressed a desire to hear me. It was not my purpose, when I arrived s 

among you, to liuve engaged in any public or political discussion; but when f 

called upon by a Ijody of gentlemen so intellitfeut and respectable, coining \ 

from all parts of the State, and counected with the admiiu'stration of public r 

justice, I do not feel at liberty to withhold a full and frauk expression 3 

of my opinion upon the subjects to which they have referred, and which now s 

engross so large a share of the public attention. 2 
'L'he points which I am refpies'ed to discuss are — 

1st. The present condition and prospects of Kansas. t 
2d. The principles allirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States in f 
the Drcd Scott case. 3 
3d. The condition of things in Utah, and the appropriate remedies for 3 
existing evils. 3 
Of the Kansas question but little need be said at the present time. You - 
are familiar with the history of the question, and my connection with it. 3 
Subsequent reflection has streiYgthened and coniirraed my convictions in the ; 
soundness of the principles on which I acted, and the correctness of the course I 
I have felt it my duty to pursue upon that subject. Kansas is about to si)oak i 
for herself, through her delegates assembled iu convention to form a constitu- 
tion, preparatory to her admis.sion into the Union on an equal footing with ) 
the original States. Peace and prosperity now prevail throughout her r 
borders. The law under which her delegates are about to Ije elected is be- . 
lieved to be just and fair in all its objects and jn'ovisions. There is every e 
reason to hope and believe that the law will be fairly interpreted and impar- r 
Wally «x«cuted, so as to insure to every bona fide iuhabitaul the free and quiet ^ 

i 



exe.^tue of tte elective franchise. If any portion of the inhabitants, actin:^ 
uuder the advice of political leader s in distant States, shall choose to absent 
themselves from the polls and withhold their votes, with a view of leaving 
the Fi'ee State Democrats in a minorty, thus securing a pro-slavery consti- 
tution in opposition to the wishes of a majority of the people living under it, 
let the responsibility rest on those who, for partizan purposes, will sacrifice 
the principles they profess to cherish and promote. Upon them and upon the 
political party for whose benefit, and under the direction of whose leaders, 
they act, let the blame be visited for fastening upon the people of a new State 
institutions repugnant to their feelings and in violation of their wishes. The 
organic act secures to the people of Kansas the sole and exclusive right of 
forming and regulating their domestic institutions to suit themselves, subject 
to no other limitation than that which the Constitution of the United States 
imposes. The Democratic party is determined to see the great fundamental 
principles of the organic act carried out in g:i<;\x .aith. The present election 
law in Kansas is acknowledged to be ffiir and just — the rights of the voters 
are clearly defined — and the exercise of those rights will be efficiently and 
scrupulously protected. Hence, if the majority of the people of Kansas desire 
to have it a free State, (and we are told by the Republican party that nine- 
tenths of the people of that territory are free State men, j there is no obstacle 
in the way of bringing Kansas into the Union as a free State, by the votes 
and voice of her own people, and in conformity with the great principles of 
the Kansas-Nebraska act — provided all the Free State men will go to the 
polls and vote their principles in accordance with their professions. If su<'-h 
is not the result let the consequences be visited upon the heads of those whose 
policy it is to produce strife, anarchy, and bloodshed in Kansas, that their 
party may profit by slavery agitation in the Northern States of this Union. 
That the Democrats of Kansas will perform their duty fearlessly and nobly, 
according to the principles they cherish, I have no doubt; and that the result 
of the struggle wall be such as will gladden the heart and strengthen the hopes 
of every friend of the Union, 1 have entire confidence. 

_Tlie Kansab question being settled peacefully and satisfactorily, in accord- 
ance with the washes of her own people,- slavei;y agitation should be bau;^>hcd 
from the halls of Congress and cease to be an exci'tiug element in our political 
struggles. Give fair play to that prmciple of self-government which recog- 
nises the right of , the people of each State and Territory to form and regulate 
their own domestic institutions, aud sectional strife will be forced to give place 
to that fraternal feeling which animated the fathers of the Revolution, and 
made 'every ditizen of every State of this glorious confederacy a member of a 
common brotherhood. 

That we are steadily and rapidly approaching that result, I cannot doubt, 
for the slavery issue has already dwindled down into the narrow limits covered 
by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the Dred Scott 
case. The moment that decision was pronounced, aud before the opinions of 
the Court could be published and read by the people, the newspaper press, in 
the interest of a powerful political party in this country, began to pour forth 
torrents of abuse and misrepresentations not only upon the decision, but upon 
the character and motives of the venerable chief justice aud his illustrious 
associates on the bench. The character of Chief Justice Taney and his asso- - 
ciate judges, who concurred with him, require no eulogy — no vindication from .« 



me. They are endeared to tVe people of the United States by their eminent 
public services — venerated for their great learning, wisdom, and experience — 
and beloved for the f-potless purity of tlieir charncters and their exemplary 
lives. The poisonous shafts of partizan malice will fall harmless at tlieir feet, 
while their jndi'tial decisions will stand in all future time, a proud monument 
to their greatness, the admiration ot the good and wise, and a rebuke to the 
partizans of faction and lawless violence. If, unfortunately, any considcrnble 
portion of the people of the United States shall so far forget their obligations 
to society as to allow partizan leaders to array them in violent resistance 
to the final decision of the highest judicial tribunal on earth, it will become 
the duty of all the friends of order and constitutional government, without 
reference to past political diCt'erences, to organize themselves and marshal 
their forces under the glorious banner of the Union, in vindication of the con- 
stitution and the supremacy of^iie laws over the advocates of faction and the 
champions of violence. To preserve the constitution inviolate, and vindicate 
th« supremacy of the laws, is the first and highest duty of every citizen of a 
fret republic. Tiie peculiar merit of our form of government over all others 
consists in the fact that the law, instead of the arbitrary will of a hereditary 
prince, prescribes, defines, and ]irotects all our rights. In this country the 
law is the will of the people, cmoodied and expressed according to the forms 
of the constitution. The courtci are the tribunals prescribed by the constitu- 
tion, aud created by the authority of the people, to determine, expound, and 
enforce the law. Hence, whoe\er resists the fiiuil decision of the highest 
judicial tribunal, aims a deadly How at our whole republican system of gov- 
crament — a blow, which if successful, would place all our rights and liberties 
at the mercy of passion, anarch}-, and violence. I repeat, therelore, that if 
resistance to the deci.-ijiiSof the Supreme Court of the United States--in a 
matter, like the points decided in tiie Dred Scott case, clearly within their 
jiirisdiciion a^ defined by the constitution— shall be forced upon the country as 
a })olitical issue, it will become a distinct and naked issue between the friends 
and the enemies of the coustitiUion — the friends aud the euemies of the 
supremacy of the laws. 

The case of Dred Scott was an action of trespass, vi et armis, in the circuit 
court of the United States for the district of Missouri, for the purpose of 
establishing his claim to be a free man, and was taken by v>rit of error, on the 
application of Scott, to the Supreme Court of the United States, where the 
final decision was prou'iunccd l)y Chief Justice Taney. The facts of the case 
were agreed upon and admitted to be true by both parties, and were in sub- 
stance, that Dred Scott was afcgro slave in Missouri ; that he went with his 
master, who was an officer of tlie army, to Fort Armstrong, on Rock Island ; 
thenrc to Kort Snelling, on the west ba k of the Mississippi river and 
within the country covered by the act o^ Congress- known as the JSliSvSOuri 
compromise ; and thence he accompanied his master to the State of iSlis- 
souri, where he has since remained a slave. Upon this statement of facts two ■ 
important and material questions arose, besides several incidental and minor , 
oues, which it was incumbent upon the court to take notice of and decide. 
The court did not attempt to avoid responsibility by disposing of the case 
upon technical points without touching the merits, nor did they go out of their 
Way to decide questions not properly before them and directly presented by 
the record. Like honest aud oouscientious judges , they ,met and decided 



each point as it arose, and faithfully performed their whole duty and nothing 
hot their duty to the country, by deteraiininei; all, the (luestions in the case, 
and nothing^ btit what was essential to the decision of the case upon ifs 
merits. The State courts of Missouri had decided against Dred Scott, and 
declared him and his children slaves, and the circuit court of the United 
States, for the district of Missouri, had decided the same thing in this very 
case, which had thus been removed to the Supreme Court of the United 
States by Scott, with the hope of reversing the decision of the circuit court 
and securing his freedom. If the Supreme Court had dismissed the writ of 
error for want of jurisdiction, without first examining into and deciding the 
merits of the case, as they are now denounced and abused for not having 
(lone, the result would have been to remand Dred Scott and his children to 
]ierpetual slavery, under the decisions which had already been pronounced by 
the supreme court of Missouri, as well as by ibe Circuit Court of the United 
States, without obtaining a decision on the merits of his case. Suppose Chief 
Justice Taney and his associates had thus remanded Dred Scott and his chil- 
dren back to slavery on a plea of abatement, or any mere technical point not 
touching the merits of the question, and without deciding whether under the 
constitution and laws, as applied to the facts of the case, he was a free man 
or a slave, would they not have been denounced with increased virulence and 
bitterness, on the charge of having remanded Dred Scott to perpetual slavery 
without first examining the merits of his case and ascertaining whether he was 
!i slave or not. 

If the case had been disposed of ;n that way, who can doubt that such 
would have been the character of the denunciations which would have been 
hurled upon the devoted heads of those illustrious judges, with much more 
])lausibility and show of fairness than they are now denounced for having 
decided the case fairly and honestly upon its merits? 

The material and controlling points in the case — those which have been 
made the subject of unmeasured abuse and denunciation, may be thus stated : 
■1st. The court decided that, under the ''-i^-^'tntion of the United States, a 
negro descended from slave parents is not and cannot be a citizen of the Uni- 
ted States. 

2d. That the act of the 6th of March, 1820, commonly called the Missouri 
compromise act, was unconstitutional and void before it was repealed by the 
Nebraska act, and consequently did not and could not have the legal effect of 
extinguishing a master's right to a slave in that territory. While the right 
continues in full force under the guarantees of tha constitution, and cannot be 
divested or alienated by an act of Congress, imiecessarily remains a barren 
aed a worthless right, unless sustained, protected and enforced, by appropriate 
police regulations and local legislation, prescribing adequate remedies tor its 
violation. These regulations and remedies must necessarily depend entirely 
upon the will and wishes of the people of the territory; as they can only be 
prescribed by the local legislatures. Hence the great principle of popular sov- 
ereignty and self-government is sustained and firmly established by the authority 
of this decision. Thus it appears that the only sin involved in the passage of 
the Kansas-Nebraska act, consists in the fact that it removed from the statute 
book an act of Congress, which was unauthorized by the constitution of the 
United States, and void because passed without constitutional authority, and 
substituted in lieu of it that great, fundamental principle of self-government, 



which recognizes the right of the people of each State and Territory to form 
and regulate their domestic institutions and internal affairs to suit themselves, 
in accordance with the constitution. [Applause,] The wisdom and propriety 
of the measure have been sustained by the decision of the highest judicial tri- 
bunal on earth, and ratified and approved by the voice of tho American people, 
in tiie election of James Buchanan to the Presidency of the United States, 
upon that naked and distinct issue. I am willing to rest the vindication of the 
measure and my action in counection with it upon that decision and that ver- 
dict of the American people. [Immense Applanse.] 

Passing from this, I will proceed to the discussion of the main ])roposition 
decided by the court, which is, that under the constitution of the United States, 
a negro, descended from slave parents imported from Africa, is not and cannot 
be a citizen of the United States. 

We are told by the leaders of the Republican or Abolition party that this 
proposition is cruel, inhuman and infamous, and should not be respected nor 
obeyed by any good citizen. In what does the objection consist ? Wherein 
is the cruelty, the inhumanity, the infamy ? It is supposed to consist in depri- 
ving the negro of citizenshiiJ, and consequently excluding him from the exercise 
of those rights and privileges which are enjoyed in common, and on terms of 
entire equality, by all American citizens, whether native-born or naturalized. 
They quote the Declaration of Independence, which says, " We hold these truths 
to he self-evicU-nt that all men are created equai," and insist that this language 
referred to, and was intended to include, npgroes, as well as white men; that it 
embraced men of all races and colors, and placed them on a footing of entire and 
absolute cfiuality; and that the battles of the revolution were fought in defence 
of thejii inciple, and the foundations of this glorious rejjublic were firmly planted 
on the immovable basis of the perfect e(iuality of the races. Hence they argue 
that any law or regulation, whether under the authority of the State govern- 
ments or that of the United States, in violation of this fundamental principleof 
negro equality with white men, is not only cruel, inhuman and infamous, but is 
subversive of the foundations of the government itself, and therefore ought not 
to be respected or obeyed by ai^y -good citizen. If we grant the truth of their 
premises it would be vain to resist the force of their reasoning or the correctness 
of their conclusions. Indeed, we would be compelled as honest men, to acknow- 
ledge and adopt the principle, and carry it out ingoud faith in all our political 
action, by modifying or repealing any legal or constitutional provision in con- 
flict with that principle. Let us examine and see what changes this principle 
would require in the constitution and laws of this State, as well as of the United 
States. Of course it would instantly emancimte and set at liberty every slave 
in each State of this Union, and in every place under the American flag, and 
within the jurisdiction of the federal constitution. Slavery being thus abolished, 
the same principle would compel us to strike from the constitution of Illinois 
the clause which denies to a negro, whether free or slave, the right to come and 
live among us, and in lieu of it to open the door for the three millions of eman- 
cipated slaves to enter and become citizens on an equality with ourselves. The 
same principle would compel us to strike the word "white" from onr constitution, 
and ailow the negro to vote on an equality with white men— and of course out- 
vote us at the poUs when they become a majority. The same principle would 
compel us to change the constitution so as to render a negro eligible to the 
legislature, to the bench, to the governship, to Congress, to the Presidency, and 



8 

to all other places of honor, profit or trust, on an equal footing with white men. 
When all these things shall have been done, and the prniciple of negro equality 
shall have been fully carried out to this extent, still the requirements of the 
Declaration of Independence will not have l)cen satisfied, if it really means, what 
the Republican or Abolition party assert it does mean, in declaring that a negro 
was created by the Almighty equal to a white man. If their interpretation of 
the Declaration of Independence be correct, and the prir.oiplc of negro equality 
be true, as supposed by the opponents of the Dred Scott decision, we shall cer- 
tainly be compelled, as conscientious and just men, to go one step further — 
repeal all laws making any distinction whatever on account of race and color, 
and authorize negroes to marry white women on an equality with white men. 
[Immense cheering ] 

When the Republican or Abolition party shall have done all these things, and 
thus have carried into practical operation the Declaration of Independence, as 
they understand it, they will have laid the fr. '"'lation for their organized oppo- 
sition to so much of the decision of the Dred Scott case, as declares that a negro 
is not a citizen of the United States. [Great Applause.] 

If, on the contrary, the opponents of the Dred Scott decision shall refuse to 
carry out their views of the Declaration of Independence and negro citizenship, 
by conferring upon the African race all the rights, privileges and immunities of 
citizenship, the same as they are or should be enjoyed by the white, how will they 
vindicate the integrity of their motives and the sincerity of their profession ? If 
the negro is the equal of the white man and was thus created by the Almighty, 
what right have they or we to reduce him to a condition of inequality, by denying 
to him the privilege of voting, holding office, mairyiug the woman of his 
choice, in short, withholding from him all political rights, and consigning him to 
political slavery ? Perceiving the inconsistently between their professions and 
their past action on this point, the leaders of the Republican or Abolition 
party in the Legislature of New York^ and some of the New England Stafes, 
and indeed in Wisconsin and in such other States as they think public sentiment 
is prepared for the measure, have recently taken the preliminary steps to 
amend the Constitution of their respective States, so as to allow negroes to vote 
and hold office, and enjoy all the rights, ... .1 |-./,iiegos of citizenship on an 
equal footing with white men. These movements have been initiated in those 
States and will soon follow in others, upon the ground that the Republican 
party was bound and pledged, by its creed and its professions — as proclaimed 
from the pulpit, from the stump, and through the newspaper press — to carry 
out the Declaration of Independence, as they profess to understand it, by 
placing the negro on an equality with the white man, in all those States in 
which they carried the Presidential election last fall, and secured the absolute 
control of all the departments of the Stiite government. It is not to be pre- 
sumed that any step for changing the constitution of Illinois, so as to confer 
the rights and privileges of citizenship upon negroes, will be taken until after 
the next election, nor will any such purpose be openly avowed, .but, on the 
contrary, in the central and southern portions of the State it will be stoutly 
denied, at the same time that all their orators, lecturers, and papers will con- 
tinue to quote the Declaration of Independence to prove that the Almighty 
created a negro equal to a white man, and consequently he has a divine right ■ 
to enjoy all the rights and privileges of the white man, and that all hiunan 
laws in conflict with that divine right must yield and give place to the " higher 



law." The time has not nrrived when it is deemed prudent by the leaders of 
the Republican party, in this State, to make a frank and honest confession of 
faith, and proclaim it to th? v/orld in ton»s thf.t CJiii be heard and lanpuaore 
that can l»e understood to mem the same thina: in all portions of the State. 
But so long as they quote :'.c Declaration of IndGpondence to prove that a 
negro was created equal to a white man, we have no excuse for closing our 
eyes and professing ignorance of wbat they iutenJ to do, so soon as they get 
the power. 

To show how shallow is the pretense that the Declaration of Independence 
had reference to, or included, t!ie negro race when it declared all men created 
equal, it is only necessary to r.fer to a few historical facts, recorded in our 
school l»ooks find familiar to our children. 

On the 4tii of July, 1776, when the Declaration of Independence was pro- 
mulgated to the world, Jfrifi r slavery existed in each one of the thirteen 
colonies. Every signer of the Declarcitiou of Independence was elected by, 
and represented, a slaveholdint; constituency. Every battle of the revolution, 
from Lexington and Bunker Hiil to King's Mountain and Yorktown, was fouglit 
in a slaveholding StuJe. 

The treaty of peace, acknowledging and confirming the independence of the 
United States, was made and .'••.-"nod on behalf of Great Britain of the one part 
aud of the thirteen slaveholdin ■ Stntf^s on the other. 

The Constitution of tlic Uir/cil States, under which we now live so happily, 
and have grown so great and po'.verful, and which we all profess to cherish and 
venerate, was formed, adopted, aa.l put in op.ration by tiie people of twelve 
slaveholding states and one free State — slavery having disappeared from Mass- 
achusetts about tiiat time under the operation of the great fundamental prin 
ciple of self-government, which recognizes the right of each state and colony 
to regulate it*? own domestic and local affairs. 

In view of these incontrovertil)le facts, can any sane man believe that the 
signers of the declaration of indf-peadence, and the heroes who fought the bat- 
tles of the revolution, and the sages who laid the foundation of our 
complex system of federal and st'^te governments, intended to place the negro 
race on an equal fooiing wiiu .i/c v.'hite race? If such had been their purpose 
would they not have abolish»-'d slavery and converted every negro into a citizen 
on the day on which they jiUt forth the Declaration of Independence ? Did 
they do it ? Did any of the thirteen States abolish slavery — much less 
place the negro on an equality v. iih the v.-hite man during the whole revolu- 
tionary struggle? History records the emphatic answer — No. Not one of 
the original states abolished slavery during the revolution, nor has any one of 
them, at any time since, extended to the African race all the rights and privi- 
leges of citizenship on terms of an entire equality with the white man. 

No one can vindicate the character, motives, aud conduct of the signers of 
the Declaration of Independence, except upon the hypothesis that they 
referred to the white race alone, and not to the African, when they declared 
all men to have been created equal — that they were speaking of British sub- 
jects on this coniincnt being equal to British subjects born and residing in 
Great Britain — that they were entitled to the same inalienable rights, and 
among them were enumerated life, liberty,- and the pursuit of happiness. The 
declaration was adopted for the pnrj^KJse of justifying the colonists, in the 
eyes of the civilized world, in withdrawing their allegiance from the British 



10 

crown, and dissolving their connection with the mother country. In this 
point of view the Declaration of Independence is in perfect harmony with all 
the events of the Revolution, and the line of policy pursued under the articles 
of confederation, and the principles embodied and established in the federal 
constitution. The history of the times clearly shows that the negroes were 
regarded as an inferior race, who, in all ages, and in every part of the globe, 
and under the most favorable circumstances, had shown themselves incapable 
of self-government, and consequently under the protection of those who were 
capable of providing for and protecting them in the exercise of all the rights 
they were capable of enjoying, consistent with the good and safety of society. 
It is on this principle that in all civilized and christian countries the govern- 
ment provides for the protection of the insane, the lunatic, the idiotic, and 
all other unfortunates who are incompetent to take care of themselves. It 
does not follow by any means that because the negro race arc incapable of 
governing themselves that therefore they should become slaves and be treated 
as such. The safe rule upon that subject, I appreliend to be this, that the 
African race should be allowed to exercise all the rights and privileges which 
they are capable of enjoying, consistent with the welfare of the community 
in which they reside, and that, under our form of government, the people of 
each State and Territory rnust be allowed to determine for themselves the 
nature and extent of those privileges. [Applause.] 

The whole history of our country clearly shows that our fathers acted on 
this principle, not only in promulgating the Declaration of Independence, 
but in laying the foundations and erecting the superstructure of our complex 
system of federal and State governments. Whoever will take the pains to 
examine the journals of the Continental Congress, will find that nearly every 
colony, before it would authorize its delegates to assent to a Declaratiou of 
Independence, placed on record an. express condition, reserving to itself the 
sole and exclusive right of regulating its own internal affairs, and domestic 
concerns, and local police, without the interference of the general congress, or 
of any other State or colony. The battles of the Revolution were all fought 
in defence of this principle, and the constitution of the United States was 
formed and adopted for the purpose of perpetuating it in all time to come ; 
at the same time it combined all the people of the Union in one confederacy 
with certain specified and limited powers for the common defence and general 
welfare. 

Under this system of government the rights and privileges of the African 
race remain precisely as they were when the constitution of the United States 
was adopted, dependent entirely upon the local legislation and policy of the 
several States where they may be found. In my opicion, the policy of Illinois 
has been a wise and just one in regard to this race, and ought to be continued, 
only making such -changes from time to time as experience shall prove to be 
just and necessary. While Illinois has the undoubted right, under the consti- 
tution of the United States, ;o adopt and persevere in this line of policy, Vir- 
ginia and each other State has a right equally clear and undeniable to pursue 
a line of policy, on the same subject, directly the reverse of ours, and we have 
no more right to complain of, or interfere with, the local and domestic concerns 
of other States and Territories than they have with ours, [Applause.] 

The founders of our government did not deem it possible, nor desirable if 
practicable, to maintain entire uniformity in the local legislation and domestic 



MIWiOWWnfijOOBI 



11 

institutions of the different States, and for this reason each State was allowed 
a separate and distinct legislature, with full powers over all internal and local 
concerns, in order that each might shape and vary its internal policy, and adapt 
it to the circumstances, interests and wishes of its own people. While there 
was a diversity of opinion in regard to the extent of the rights and privileges 
which could be safely entrusted to the African race in the diflV-rcnt States, 
tfiey all repudiated the doctrine of the equality of the white and black races, 
and concurred in that line of policy which should preserve the purity of each, 
and prevent any species of anialgauiation, political, social or domestic. They 
had witnessed the sad and melancholy results of the mixture of the races in 
Mexico, South America and Central America, where the Spaniards, from 
motives of policy, had admitted the negro and other inferior races, to citizen- 
ship, and, conse(jueutly, to political and social amalgamation. The demorali- 
zation and dcgredation which prevailed in the Spanisii and French colonies, 
where no distinction on account of color or race were tolerated, operated as a 
warninjr to our revolutionary fathers to preserve the purity of the white race, 
and to estaldish their political, social and domestic institutions upon such a 
basis as would lorever exclude the idea uf negro citizenshi]) and negro eciuality. 
[Applause.] 

They understood that great natural law which declares that amalgamation, 
between superior and inferior races, brings their j)0sterity down to the lower 
level of the inferior, but never elev{lt3S them to the higher level of the superior 
race. I appeal to each of those gallant young men before me, who won im- 
mortal glory on the l)loody fields of Mexico, in vindication of their country's 
rights and honor, whether their information and observation in that country, 
does not fully sustain the truth of the projjosition that amalgamation is degra- 
ding, demoralizing, disease and death ? Is it true that the negro is our equal 
and our brother? The history of the times clearly show that our fathers did 
not regard the negro race as any kin to them, and determined so to lay the 
foundations of society and government that they should never be of any kin 
to their posterity. [Immense a])pl;n'^e.] 

But when you conler up< n l.ie ;iir!can race the privileges of citizen.ship, and 
put them upon an equality with white men at the polls, in the jury box, on the 
bench, in the executive chair, and in the councils of the nation, upon what 
principle will you deny their equality at the festive board and in the domestic 
circle. 

The Supreme Court of the United States has decided that, under the consti- 
tution, a negro is not and cannot be a citizen. 

The Republican or Abolition party pronounce that decision cruel, inhuman 
and infamous, and appeul to the American people to disregard and refuse to 
obey it. Let us join issue with them and put ourselves upon the country for 
trial. [Cheers and applause.] 

Mr. President, I will now respond to the call which has been made upon 
me for my opinion of the condition of things in Utah, and the appropriate 
remedy for existing evils. 

The Territory of Utah was organized under one of the acts known as the 
compromise measures of 1850. on the supposition that the inhabitants were 
American citizens, owing and acknowledging allegiance to the United States, 
and consecjuently entitled to the bcneiits of self government while a territory 
and to admission into the Union, on an equal footing with the original States 



12 

so soon US they should number the requisite population. It was conceded on 
all hands, and V)y all parties, that the peculiarities of their religious faith ond 
ceremonies interposed no valid and constitutional objection to their reception 
into the Union, in conformity Avith the federal constitutio'i, so long as they 
were in all otlier respects entitled to admission. Ilence the great political 
parties of the country indorsed and approved the compromise measures of 185u, 
including the act for the organization of the Territory of Utah, with the hope 
and in the confiilence that the inhabitants would conform to the constitution 
and laws, and prove themselves worthy, respectable and law-abiding citizens. 
If we are permitted to place credence in the rumors and reports from that 
country, (and it must be admitted that they have increased and strengthened, 
and assumed consistency and plausibility by each succeeding mail,) seven 3'ears 
experience has disclosed a state of facts entirely different from that which was 
supposed to exist when Utah was organized. These rumors and reports would 
seem to justify the belief that the following facts are susceptible of proof: 

1st, That nine-tenths of the inhabitants are aliens by birth, who have 
refused to become naturalized, or to take the oath of allegiance, or to do any 
other act recognizing the government of the United States as the paramount 
authority in that Territory, 

2d. That all the inhabitants, whether native or alien born, known as Mor- 
mons, (and they constitute the whole people of the Territory,) are bound by 
horrid oaths and terrible penalties to recognize and maintain the authority of 
Brigham Young, and the government of which he is the head, as })ara.mount 
to that of the United States, in civil as well as religious affairs; and that they 
will, in due time, and under the direction of their leaders, use all means in 
their power to subvert the government of the United States, and resist its 
authority. 

3d. That the Mormon government, with Brigham Young at its head, is now 
forming alliances with the Indian tribes of Utah and the adjoining Territories 
— stimulating the ludians to acts of hostility— and oigf^uizing, bands of his own 
followers, under the name of " Dauites or Destroying Angels," to prosecute a 
system of robbery and murder upon American. citizens, who support the author- 
ity of the United States, and denounce the iutamous and disgusting practices 
and institutions of the Mormon government. 

If, upon a full investigation, these representations shall prove true, they will 
establish the fact that the inhabitants of Utah, as a comumnity, are out-laws 
and alien enemies,* unfit to exercise »the right of self-government under the 
organic act, and unworthy to be admitted into the Union as a State, when 
their only object in seeking admission is to interpose the sovereignty ot the 
the State as an invincible shield to protect them in their treason and crime, 
debauchery and infamy. [Applause.] 

Under this view of the subject, I think it is the duty of the President, as I 
have no doubt it is his fixed purpose, to remove Brigham Young and all his 
followers from office, and to fill their places with bold, able, and true men, and 
to cause a thorough and searching investigation into all the crimes and enor- 
mities which are alleged to be perpetrated daily in that Territory, under the 
direction of Brigham Young and his confederatis; and to use all the military 
force necessary to protect the officers in the discharge of their duties, and to 
enforce the laws of the laud. [Applause.] 

When the authentic evidence shall arrive, if it shall establish the facts which 



13 

are believed to exist, it will become the duty of Congress to apply the knife 
and cat out this loathsome, disgusting ulcer. [Applause.] No temporizing 
policy — no lialf-way measure will then answer. It has been supposed by those 
who have not thought deeply upon the subject, that an act of Congress pro- 
hibiting murder, robbery, polygamy, and other crimes, with appropriate penal- 
ties for those offences, would afford adequate remedies for all the enormities 
complained of. Suppose such a law to be on the statute book, and I believe 
they have a criminal code, providing the usual i)unishments for the entire 
catalogue of crimes, according to the usages of all civilized and christian 
countries, with the exception of polygamy, which is practiced under the sanc- 
tion of the Mormon church, but is neither prohibited nor authorized by the 
laws of the Territory. 

Suppose, I repeat, that Congress should pass a law prescribing a criminal 
code and punishing polygamy among other offences, what effect would it 
have — what good would it do? Would you call on twenty-three grand jury- 
men with twenty-three wives each, to find a bill of indictment against a poor 
miserable wretch for having two wives? [Cheers and laughter.] Would you 
rely upon twelve petit jurors with twelve wives each to convict the same 
loathsome wretch for having two wives ? [Continued applause.] Would you 
expect a grand jury composed of twenty-three "Danites" to find a bill of 
indictment against a brother "Danite" for having, under their direction, 
murdered a Gentile, as they call all American citizens ? Much less would you 
expect a jury of twelve " destroying angels " to find another " destroying 
angel " guilty of the crime of murder, and cause him to be hanged for no 
other offence than that of taking the life of a Gentile ! No. If there is any 
truth in the reports we receive from Utah, Congress may pass what laws it 
chooses, but you can never rely upon the local tribunals and juries to punish 
crimes committed by Mormons in that Territory. Some other and more 
effectual remedy must be devised and applied. In. my opinion the first step 
should be the absplnte and unconditional repeal of the organic act — blotting 
the territorial government out of existence — upon the ground that they are 
alien enemies and outlaws, denying their allegiance and defying the authority 
of the United States. [Immv :.-,.. ci^.jj.aase.] 

The territorial government once abolished, the country would revert to its 
primitive condition, prior to the act of 1850, "under the sole and exclusive 
jurisdiction of the United States," and should be placed under the operation 
of the act of Congress of the 30th of April, 1790, and the various acts sup- 
plemental thereto and amendatory thereof, "providing for the punishment of 
crimes against the United States within any fort, arsenal, dock-yard, maga- 
zine, or ANY OTHER PLACE OR DISTRICT OF COUNTRY, UNDER THE S0I,E AND EXCLU- 
SIVE jurisdiction of the United States. All offences against the provisions of 
these acts are required by law to be tried and punished by the United States 
courts in the States or territories where the offenders shall be " first appre- 
hended OR BROUGHT FOR TRIAL." Thus it will be sceu that, under the plan pro- 
posed, Brigham Young and his confederates could be "apprehended and 
and brought for trial" to Iowa or Missouri, California or Oregon, or to any 
other adjacent State or territory, where a fair trial could be had, and justice 
administered impartially — where the witnesses could bo protected and the 
judgment of the court could be carried into execution, without violence or 
intimidation. I do not propose to introduce any new principles into our 



14 

jurisprudence, nor to change the modes of proceeding or the rules of practice 
in our courts. I only propose to place the district of country embraced within 
the territory of Utah under the operation of the same laws and rules of pro- 
ceeding that Kansas, Nebraska, Minnesota, and our other Territories were 
placed, before they beaime organized Territories. Tlio whole country embraced 
within those Territories was under the operation of that same system of laws, 
and all the offences committed within the same, were punished in the manner 
now proposed, so long as the country remained " under tlie sole and exclusive 
jurisdiction of the United States;" but the moment the country was organized 
into territorial governments, with legislative, executive and judicial depart- 
ments, it Ceased to be under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United 
States, within the meaning of the act of Congress, for the reason that it had 
passed under another and a ditferent jurisdiction. Hence, if we abolish the 
territorial government of Utah, preserving all existing rights, and place the 
country under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, offenders 
can be apprehended, and brought into the adjacent States or Territories, for 
trial and punishment, in the same manner and under the same rules and 
regulations, which obtained, and have been uniformly practiced, under like 
circumstances since 1190. 

If the plan proposed shall be found an effective and adequate remedy for 
the evils complained of in Utah, no one, no matter what his ix)litical creed or 
partizan associations, need be apprehensive that it will violate any cherished 
theory or constitutional right, in regard to the government of tlie Territories. 
It is a great mistake to suppose that all the territory or land belonging to the 
United States, must necessarily be governed by the same laws and under the 
same clause of the Constitution, without reference to the purpose to which it is 
dedicated or the use which it is proposed to make of it. While all that portion 
of country which is or shall be set apart to become new States, must necessarily 
be governed under and consistent with that clause of the Constitution which 
authorizes Congress to admit new States, it does not follow that otlier territory, 
not intended to be organizedand admitted into the Union as States, must be 
governed under the same clause of the Constitution, with all the rights of self- 
government and State equality. For instance, if we should purchase Vancou- 
ver's Island from Great Britain, for the purpose of removing all the Indians 
from our Pacific Territories, and locating them on that Island, as their perma- 
nent home, with guarantees that it should never be settled or occupied by 
white men, will it be contended that the purchase should be made and the 
island governed under the power to admit new States when it was not acquired 
for that purpose, or intended to be applied to that object? Being acquired for 
Indian purposes, is it not more reasonable to assume that the power to acquire 
was derived from the Indian clause, and the island must necessarily be gov- 
erned under and consistent with that clause of the Constitution which relates 
to Indian affairs. Again, suppose we should deem it expedient to buy a 
small island in the Mediterranean or Carribean sea, for a naval station, can it 
be said, with any force or plausibility, that the purchase should be made or the 
island governed under the power to admit new States? On the contrary, is it 
not obvious that the right to acquire and govern in that case is derived from 
the power "to provide and maintain a navy," and must be exercised consistent 
with that power. So if we purchase land for forts, arsenals, or other military 
purposes, or set apart and dedicate any territory, which we now own, for a. 



15 

military reservation, it immediately passes under the military power, and must 
be governed in harmony with it. So, if land be purchased for a mint, it must 
be governed under the power to coin money ; or, if purchased for a post-office, 
it must be governed under the power to establish post-offices and post-roads; 
or, for a custom house, under the power to regulate commerce ; or, for a court 
house, under the judiciary power. In short, th'^ clause of the Constitution 
under which any land or territory, belonging to the United States, must be 
governed is indicated by the object for which it was accjuired and the purpose 
to which it is dedicated. So long, therefore, as the organic act of Utah shall 
remain in force, setting apart that country for a new State, and pledging the 
faith of the United States to receive it into the Union so soon as it should have 
the requisite pop'ilation, we arc bound to extend to it all the rights of self-gov- 
ernment, agreeably to the clause of the Constitution, providing for the admission 
of new States. Hence the necessity of repealing the organic act, withdrawing 
the pledge of admission, and placing it under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction 
of the United States, in order that persons and property may be protected, 
and justice administered, and crimes punished under the laws prescribed by 
Congress in such cases. 

While the power of Congres? to repeal the organic act and abolish the 
Territorial government cannot be denied, the question may arise whether we 
possess the moral right of exercising the power, alter the charter has been 
once granted, and the local government organized under its provisions. This 
is a grave question — one which should not be decided hastily, nor under the 
influence of i)assion or pi-ejudice. In my opinion, I am free to say there is no 
moral right to repeal the organic act of a territory, and abolish the govern- 
ment organized under it, unless the inhabitants of that territory, as a com- 
munity, have done such acts as amount to a forfeiture of all rights under it — 
such as becoming alien enemies, outlaws, disavowing their allegiance, err resist- 
ing the authority of the United States. These and kindred acts, which we 
have every reason to believe are daily perpetrated in that Territory, would 
not only give us the moral right, but make it our imperative duty to abolish 
the territorial government and place the inhabitants under the sole and exclu- 
sive jurisdiction of the United States, to the end that justice may be done, 
and the dignity and authority of the government vindicated. 

1 have thus presented plainly and frankly my views of the Utah question — 
the evils and the remedy — upon the facts as they have reached us, and are 
supposed to be substaurially correct. If official reports and authentic in- 
formation shall change or modify these facts, I shall be ready to conform 
my action to the real facts as they shall be found to exist. I have no such 
pride of opinion as will induce me to persevere m an error one moment after 
ray judgment is convinced. If, therefore, a better plan can be devised — one 
more consistent with justice and sound policy, or more efiective as a remedy 
for acknowledged evils, I will take great pleasure in adopting it, in lieu of the 
one I have presented to you to-night 

In conclusion, permit me to present my grateful acknowledgments for your 
patient attention and the kind and respectful manner in which you have re- 
ceived my remarks. 



P D ~ d 8, 



rl 



3 



^^* 



na^ncoBonoan 



.A^ 




.0- 



^^. 






'?>'■ 






> 






,-^ o 



* O N O ' O,"^ 



•- %.<^ :W^^ \.J^ -■ 





^\ 



'_, <^ 



. , , ^^ 

o 



A^ 






if,*'-, %r 



.5^"^ 



r 




^s NOV 82 



N. MANCHESTER, 
INDIANA 46962 



4 O 

r1 > ^^ 



^:' 









.' >^-V. •.; 



&«;.■ ^y ^ 



iin i innfiii i nnBnnw TWTrmimfl 



